Did humans always eat meat?

[Korn]

The argument 'but our ancestors ate meat' makes no sense. Our ancestors probably flung feces at each other and dragged women into their caves by the hair to rape them repeatedly.

Plus, why should we eat what our ancestors ate anyway - if we know of a better option now?
Both in South India, + some areas in the North East and North-West, there aren't only strong vegetarian traditions, but also many who avoid dairy products.

Here are two articles about an Indian who eats vegetarian food (he eats a little dairy sometimes), but is still going strong. He started participating in the London Marathon when he was 89, but will stop doing marathons after tomorrow, when he will participate in the Hong Kong marathon, five weeks before his 102nd birthday - but he "fully intends to continue running for pleasure".

http://blog.petaasiapacific.com/vege...of-good-health
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauja_Singh

[Hedi]

Or the China study. It is widely known that it is much healthier to not/hardly eat any animal products, but people aren't willing to change their diets in the western world since it's culture (and most of them don't know anything about diet). It's quite sad really. I recently watched the documentary Forks over Knives, it blew my mind! People who don't eat animal products are not likely to develop any diseases like cancer, cardiovascular diseases or diabetes. These are the diseases that the most people suffer from and die of in our society, to think that they can be avoided by something as simple as changing one's diet

[togev]

Based on my research, I am convinced that our hominid ancestors were fruitarians.

[Carlo Prisco]

Hi everybody. I'm writing a PhD thesis in Law about right to veganism and, of course, I've studied and considered also biological implications, from our ancestors to the present.
It is impossible even thinking that humans, without tools and fire, were able to eat meat, as well as, before agriculture's invention (about 20.000 years ago), eat plants. They weren't able to cook, nor to seminate, so that they could just eat fruits from plants that didn't imply any killing (neither plants). Of course, they possibly ate little animals and insects, also those contained in fruits (as worms). One thing to be underlined is that today's fruits are not even similar to ancient fruits: today fruits are beautiful, big, seedless, nutritionally poor and that's why today is a little bit harder to be fruitarian.
Anyway we know that humans developed the ability to create, preserve and use fire about 1.4 millions of years ago, but that it was really used just about 4/500.000 years ago. In about the same period they developed the ability to make tools: it was simply impossible, for us, without any tool (arrows, bows, etc.) to hunt. It is also impossible, for us, to eat meat directly from big animals covered with fur, just using teeth and hands, so we needed tools also to slaughter meat before eating. On the other hand we have recent studies about small humans communities living in forrests, as our ancestors did: their eating is about 80% vegan, mainly fruit, and just about 20% small mammals or insects. Last, but not least, until last century, meat eating was rare and, farmers in first place, ate meat about once a week, or less.

[Consistency]

Hi everybody. I'm writing a PhD thesis in Law about right to veganism and, of course, I've studied and considered also biological implications, from our ancestors to the present.
It is impossible even thinking that humans, without tools and fire, were able to eat meat, as well as, before agriculture's invention (about 20.000 years ago), eat plants. They weren't able to cook, nor to seminate, so that they could just eat fruits from plants that didn't imply any killing (neither plants). Of course, they possibly ate little animals and insects, also those contained in fruits (as worms). One thing to be underlined is that today's fruits are not even similar to ancient fruits: today fruits are beautiful, big, seedless, nutritionally poor and that's why today is a little bit harder to be fruitarian.
Anyway we know that humans developed the ability to create, preserve and use fire about 1.4 millions of years ago, but that it was really used just about 4/500.000 years ago. In about the same period they developed the ability to make tools: it was simply impossible, for us, without any tool (arrows, bows, etc.) to hunt. It is also impossible, for us, to eat meat directly from big animals covered with fur, just using teeth and hands, so we needed tools also to slaughter meat before eating. On the other hand we have recent studies about small humans communities living in forrests, as our ancestors did: their eating is about 80% vegan, mainly fruit, and just about 20% small mammals or insects. Last, but not least, until last century, meat eating was rare and, farmers in first place, ate meat about once a week, or less.

Raw meat, especially from a freshly killed animal is easily digestible. Have you ever eaten carpaccio?

Vegans have more bacteria in the colon which can break down cellulose and cellobiose; not whole vegetation. Though our teeth are required to break down the cells walls of edible plants. Why do we need to cook plants?

Fruits only contained worms after we domesticated chickens. Chickens eat insects and worms. You don't know that fruits in the past were all bitter.

Carbon dating only goes back to 50,000 years, any evolution information before 50,000 years is based on pure speculation.

No one requires tools to hunt small animals. Chickens and other small animals are easily killed without tools.

The scientific neurogenesis evidence I've found indicates that our brains increased in a non-polluted environment with culture on a high omega 6 diet, nuts and seeds, and obviously other plant foods for the required nutrients, edible leaves and fruit.

[Carlo Prisco]

Raw meat, especially from a freshly killed animal is easily digestible. Have you ever eaten carpaccio?

Vegans have more bacteria in the colon which can break down cellulose and cellobiose; not whole vegetation. Though our teeth are required to break down the cells walls of edible plants. Why do we need to cook plants?

Fruits only contained worms after we domesticated chickens. Chickens eat insects and worms. You don't know that fruits in the past were all bitter.

Carbon dating only goes back to 50,000 years, any evolution information before 50,000 years is based on pure speculation.

No one requires tools to hunt small animals. Chickens and other small animals are easily killed without tools.

The scientific neurogenesis evidence I've found indicates that our brains increased in a non-polluted environment with culture on a high omega 6 diet, nuts and seeds, and obviously other plant foods for the required nutrients, edible leaves and fruit.

Obviously I didn't mentioned my opinions, just referred facts, stated by researchers. I don't think that our ancestors ate carpaccio, nor that worms in the fruit have anything in common with chicken, nor that without tools we were able to eat chicken... Your arguments are little too confused to be analitically considered. Any speculation is possible, but facts are the above mentioned. We might discuss about the fact that fire was used 400.000 or 500.000 years ago, not say that it is impossible to state anything about that, over 50.000 years ago. About bitter fruits in the past: this isn't correct (once again)... Moreover: we eat orange, that's bitter, and so on.... so what's the point? Our ancestors didn't eat bitter fruit (that, anyway, weren't bitter)? Once again, I've studied for years this argument, reading many books: facts and logics speak loud and clear. Except that you can show me how to eat a chicken, just using your hands and your teeth, I can't share your considerations. Just let me argue that the chicken comes from India (not Africa, where our ancestors evolved) and it was domesticated about 5.000 years ago ;-)

[Consistency]

Obviously I didn't mentioned my opinions, just referred facts, stated by researchers. I don't think that our ancestors ate carpaccio, nor that worms in the fruit have anything in common with chicken, nor that without tools we were able to eat chicken... Your arguments are little too confused to be analitically considered. Any speculation is possible, but facts are the above mentioned. We might discuss about the fact that fire was used 400.000 or 500.000 years ago, not say that it is impossible to state anything about that, over 50.000 years ago. About bitter fruits in the past: this isn't correct (once again)... Moreover: we eat orange, that's bitter, and so on.... so what's the point? Our ancestors didn't eat bitter fruit (that, anyway, weren't bitter)? Once again, I've studied for years this argument, reading many books: facts and logics speak loud and clear. Except that you can show me how to eat a chicken, just using your hands and your teeth, I can't share your considerations. Just let me argue that the chicken comes from India (not Africa, where our ancestors evolved) and it was domesticated about 5.000 years ago ;-)

The so called evolution "facts" are merely wild interpretations stated by the researchers from the little amount of evidence they have collected.

Carpaccio without the condiments(lemon, olive oil, rucola, sale). My point is that raw meat is perfectly digestible and you'd be surprised what anyone of us would do and eat in a survival situation. There is plenty of big sticks around to bash animals or each other to death just to survive. When you're starving; you'll eat anything that is available, including a raw bird.

Chickens and other birds are natural predators of worms and insects. The reason why there is worms in fruits and why we have to spray pesticides on fruits and vegetables is because the chickens/birds are locked up in factories.

Unripe oranges are bitter and oranges don't ripen further once they have been picked off the tree, unlike other fruits. Ripe fruit is sweet and delicious. Life experience trumps assumptions written in books.

Did you know that most of the land wasn't desertified in the past? That there was a lot more vegetation, fish and animals?

[LylaAnderson]

While interesting, from the highlighted portions of the text above, I wouldn't think it was at all comprehensive. It's interesting and food for thought, though.

I don't think people "aren't meant to eat meat." I think we're perfectly capable of consuming animal products (barring allergies, intolerances etc. that crop up - but people have those for plant products, too). I do not think it is healthy to do so in large quantities, especially to the exclusion of plants.

This quote: "People do not have a negative reaction to unfamiliar fruits and vegetables. Consider, I could ask you to try an unfamiliar “star fruit” from the tropics for the first time and you would eat and enjoy it without hesitation. Why? Because your natural instincts are to eat fruits and vegetables." I highly disagree with it. I know a LOT of people who balk at eating new plants, fruits or otherwise. Also, it seems that it would be natural to be concerned about and question new plant foods because of possible toxins and poisons for humans.

So, all in all, I think humans can probably exist fine without animal products (and a balanced diet). And I think they can probably exist just fine eating animal products (and a balanced diet). I don't think it's a black and white as people want it to be.

But I do think it's horrible and wrong to treat animals the way we do before and during slaughter. Which is why I'm a vegan.

[Korn]

I think we're perfectly capable of consuming animal products (barring allergies, intolerances etc. that crop up - but people have those for plant products, too). I do not think it is healthy to do so in large quantities, especially to the exclusion of plants.

Hi, and welcome!
Eating animal products is always, to some degree, to the exclusion of plants, because if you eat, say, 200 g animal products, you'll be less hungry and therefore not eat the vegan products you would have eaten if you didn't satisfy your hunger with animal products.

But in general, maybe the question/this topic, from a health perspective, is about quantities. There's very little research on humans who eat animal products in what I'd consider very small quantities. (Why should we eat animal products in small quantities anyway, where we don't need them, the animal don't want to become our food - and so on?)

But the statement about humans being perfectly capable of consuming animal products "barring allergies, intolerances etc" is tricky, because a typical consumer of animal products would probably just categorize all those who have reactions against animal products as having an "intolerance", "allergy" or similar. If the numbers in this article from Science Daily are right, most people (61%) are lactose intolerant:

Sherman and former Cornell undergraduate student Gabrielle Bloom '03, now a graduate student at the University of Chicago, compiled data on lactose intolerance (the inability to digest dairy products) from 270 indigenous African and Eurasian populations in 39 countries, from southern Africa to northern Greenland. Their findings will be published in a forthcoming issue of Evolution and Human Behavior.
On average, Sherman and Bloom found that 61 percent of people studied were lactose intolerant, with a range of 2 percent in Denmark and 100 percent in Zambia.

Interestingly, Zambia is very close to where the human race originated from. Nobody claims than humans originally came from Denmark. :-]

From the same article:

According to the National Digestive Diseases Information Clearinghouse, some 30 million to 50 million Americans are lactose intolerant, including up to 75 percent of African Americans and American Indians and 90 percent of Asian Americans

This article, "Lactose Tolerance in East Africa Points to Recent Evolution" is also interesting:

A surprisingly recent instance of human evolution has been detected among the peoples of East Africa. It is the ability to digest milk in adulthood, conferred by genetic changes that occurred as recently as 3,000 years ago, a team of geneticists has found.

Throughout most of human history, the ability to digest lactose, the principal sugar of milk, has been switched off after weaning because the lactase enzyme that breaks the sugar apart is no longer needed. But when cattle were first domesticated 9,000 years ago and people later started to consume their milk as well as their meat, natural selection would have favored anyone with a mutation that kept the lactase gene switched on.

Some humans, especially in Northern climates, may have evolved towards tolerating milk simply for survival reasons, but from the perspective of our ancestors' history, consuming milk from other species/consuming milk as adults is something really new. The earliest members of the genus Homo were Homo Habilis, which evolved around 2,3 million years ago, so 3000 or 9000 years in this context is practically "nothing".

Another indication of humans not being generally "perfectly" capable of consuming animal products are the many diseases which are associated with the consumptions of animal products. (Check our section called "Animal products: health risks", eg this article about various types of cancer associated with intake of eggs, fish milk and meat.)


The world's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, states that...

The results of an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians also appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than nonvegetarians. Furthermore, vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates.

So - as a comment to your suggestion about humans being perfectly capable of consuming animal products...
If consuming animal products:
• increases the risk of death from ischemic heart disease
• causes higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels
• causes higher blood pressure
• causes higher rates of hypertension
•*causes higher rates of type 2 diabetes
• causes a higher body mass index
• increases the overall cancer rates

...then, what is the definition of "perfect"/"perfectly", in this context? I think your statement is misleading, because it gives the impression that you think we generally are perfectly capable of consuming animal products, just not in large amounts - but one main problem is that non-vegetarian humans (and many non-vegan, "lacto-vegetarian" humans too) generally do consume animal products in large quantities.

People do not have a negative reaction to unfamiliar fruits and vegetables. Consider, I could ask you to try an unfamiliar “star fruit” from the tropics for the first time and you would eat and enjoy it without hesitation. Why? Because your natural instincts are to eat fruits and vegetables." I highly disagree with it.

A lot of this may have to do with the difference between natural instincts and a learned/imposed skepticism against trying/tasting something new, caused by eg. being forced to eat stuff we didn't like as kids.
I have tried many new plants, both as a vegan and a non-vegan, without any hesitation, but I didn't enjoy them all. But my skepticism, even as a non-vegan, has always been much larger against eating an unknown animal/animal product than a new plant based food product. In Europe, there has recently been a case where meat from horses has been found in products that were meant to contain meat from cows, and it caused a lot of furore. If someone would find meat from, say, mice, rats, dogs, fox, cats, or squirrels in human food, it would also end up getting a lot of negative press; a lot more than of someone found some amounts of pear in a juice that was supposed to be based on apples only.

Imagine that you, before you became a vegan, was very hungry in some remote place where all you could eat was either a fruit you hadn't tried before, picked from a tree, or some animal (bird, insect, small furry animal...) you saw in the same tree. We know what vegans would eat, but what do you think you/most non-vegan humans would prefer to try (first)?

it seems that it would be natural to be concerned about and question new plant foods because of possible toxins and poisons for humans

True, but if a plant was toxic/poisonous for humans, it wouldn't be considered "food".

I don't think it's a black and white as people want it to be.

I agree.

But I do think it's horrible and wrong to treat animals the way we do before and during slaughter. Which is why I'm a vegan.

I'm not vegan for that reason, because I wouldn't kill and eat an animal even if it was treated well before and during slaughter - but that's a topic for a different thread.

[LylaAnderson]

I have to be quick and don't have time to go into detail, but...


"Eating animal products is always, to some degree, to the exclusion of plants" --That's not what I meant. I meant cutting out most/all plants, not just reducing them.


"Some humans, especially in Northern climates, may have evolved towards tolerating milk simply for survival reasons" -- And if that happened, why does what our ancestors did have any bearing on what we should eat? If some humans adapted to eat animal products and become whole cultures that have lived for tons of years, then they are technically built to consume animal products (or "perfectly capable").


"Interestingly, Zambia is very close to where the human race originated from. Nobody claims than humans originally came from Denmark." -- again, if those people adapted to consume dairy, and they aren't intolerant, etc., then the argument that they're not "meant" to eat it doesn't really hold water. They can consume it as part of a balanced, varied diet.


"diseases which are **associated** with the consumptions of animal products." -- All of that is actually correlations or indirect and partial possible causations. There are few direct, unmediated links there, if any at all.


Also, if you google it, you can find studies that show vegetarians and vegans have more broken bones,


"but one main problem is that non-vegetarian humans generally do consume animal products in large quantities." -- Yes, that was my point. Lots of it is bad. A little is not.


"what do you think you/most non-vegan humans would prefer to try (first)?" Depends on culture. In a hunting-heavy culture, and if I was really hungry, probably the animal. But since I am vegan, have never hunted and wouldn't know how to do so if I had to, I'd go for the plant. That doesn't really mean it's "natural" or "unnatural" for me to eat the fruit first.


"True, but if a plant was toxic/poisonous for humans, it wouldn't be considered "food"." Right, which is why new, unknown things are cause for caution. I don't know any animal flesh that is in and of itself (not riddled with parasites or something, which plants can be too) able to poison someone like the wrong plant would (eating Cassava or something).


"I wouldn't kill and eat an animal even if it was treated well before and during slaughter" -- that is a topic for a different thread. But suffice it to say that I would if in the right circumstances. Just like a big carnivorous animal would eat me in the right circumstances.


We disagree on whether people are "meant" to eat animal products. I think most can do so in moderation and be very healthy. It's when moderation, balance, and variation (yep, I like those words) go out the window that we get major problems.

Hope most of that made some sense! I had to type it out super quick - now I'm a bit late.

[Korn]

If some humans adapted to eat animal products and become whole cultures that have lived for tons of years, then they are technically built to consume animal products (or "perfectly capable").

Yeah, that would be true for "some" humans, as you say, and only if they both tolerate milk without any immediate reactions and that there's no truth to the many claims that consumption of animal products may cause or contribute to the development of various diseases

"Interestingly, Zambia is very close to where the human race originated from. Nobody claims than humans originally came from Denmark." -- again, if those people adapted to consume dairy, and they aren't intolerant, etc., then the argument that they're not "meant" to eat it doesn't really hold water.

Again, that would be true for that group only (eg. people in Denmark), or rather; people of Danish origins except those Danes who actually have problems with animal products. It would say anything about humans in general. If most people (as in the above mentioned 61% of all humans) have issues with milk, it doesn't make sense to use people in Denmark as the main reference for whether the human race as a whole having issues or not with animal products.

"diseases which are **associated** with the consumptions of animal products." -- All of that is actually correlations or indirect and partial possible causations. There are few direct, unmediated links there, if any at all.

Yes, a so called spurious effect could be a part of all this, and needs to be taken into consideration. At the same time, in order to claim, on a scientific basis, that humans are perfectly capable of consuming animal products, you'd also need to document that in one way or the other. I know of many people (including a number of members on this forum) who have experienced health improvements after dropping animal products, and if we should discuss each of the studies referred to in the relevant studies (of which some has been linked to in threads on this forum), we need to do it on a case-by-case basis, in dedicated threads.

Also, if you google it, you can find studies that show vegetarians and vegans have more broken bones

Vegans/vegetarians which don't get enough calcium from non-vegan sources after dropping animal products could of course have bone problems. Check this link if you want (http://saveourbonesvideos.s3.amazona...cium-Guide.pdf), but again: we need to move each of these topics into separate thread for this discussion to make sense....

"but one main problem is that non-vegetarian humans generally do consume animal products in large quantities." -- Yes, that was my point. Lots of it is bad. A little is not.

Lots/normal/little is a question of definition. When you suggest that we're perfectly capable of consuming animal products, the most relevant thing to look at is IMHO which quantities you refer to, and since most people who consume animal products do that in large quantities, I think a general comment has to based on what's "normal". If humans aren't capable of consuming animal products in the amounts non-vegans usually consume animal products, it's IMHO a lot better to spread a message about humans not being perfectly capable of consuming animal products in"normal" amounts than turning the situation upside dow, so to speak.

"what do you think you/most non-vegan humans would prefer to try (first)?" Depends on culture. In a hunting-heavy culture, and if I was really hungry, probably the animal. But since I am vegan, have never hunted and wouldn't know how to do so if I had to, I'd go for the plant. That doesn't really mean it's "natural" or "unnatural" for me to eat the fruit first.

The question was what you would have done as a non-vegan... It seems that even people who are used to eat meat, in a culture with a very high consumption of animal products, rather would pick an apple from a tree than try to kill and eat an animal in the tree. When you mention a "hunting-heavy culture" you are referring to a type of culture very few people our visitors and internet users in general belong to.

I don't know any animal flesh that is in and of itself (not riddled with parasites or something, which plants can be too) able to poison someone like the wrong plant would (eating Cassava or something).

That may be right, which makes it even more interesting that so many people would choose an unknown fruit over an unknown animal.

We disagree on whether people are "meant" to eat animal products.

"Meant" implies that there is a "meaning" and could even suggest some kind of religious/philosophical overhead, so discussing "meant" could easily take this thread totally off topic.

I guess we agree that a general discussion has to be focused on humans as a whole (and not just eg Danes or people in hunting-heavy cultures. The organisation I linked to above states that proper vegan/vegetarian diets "may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases". That would be a misleading, general "fact" if what you say is right except if you actually mean is "Humans are perfectly capable of consuming animal products - but this doesn't apply to must humans/the way most humans eat today".

[rainwater]

There have always been humans that ate meat, and there have always been humans that were vegetarian. Some by choice, and some by necessity.